In the Book I, the discussion of defining justice is brought out from peers of Socrates: Cephalus defines justice as “giving what is owed and living up to your legal obligations and being honest”. Polemarchus says justive is “the art which gives good to friends and evil to enemies”. Thrasymachus proclaims “justice is nothing else than the interest and advantage or what is beneficial to the stronger. (SparkNotes, 2002) Socrates refuted their opinion or suggestion and disproved them by showing unjust cases. There are three arguments listed by Socrates preferring to the just life than the unjust life.
New accusers say that Socrates corrupts the youth and does not believe in the gods of the State, and has new divinities of his own. To defend himself against these charges, Socrates asks Meletus some questions. As a result, Meletus is shown to be contradicting himself and making accusations that are absolutely absurd. To the question “Who are the improvers of the youth?” Meletus replies that they are all citizens, but not Socrates, arguing that he is only one who is corrupting them. At the same time, he recognizes that no one would intentionally make the people worse because he is obliged to live among them.
Justice, as defined in the dictionary is behaving according to what is right and fair. However, Plato goes even beyond this definition. He understood justice as a special sort of balance and harmony of the soul. Harmony is attained through the satisfaction of the desires and fulfillment of the three components of the soul, which are reason, spirit, and appetite. Reason is the desire for knowledge and orderliness.
Aristotle believes that experience is necessary; and what is known to us and our experiences leads to the human good, which is why what leads to happiness can so widely vary. Virtuous actions also known as habits impacts your character. If you have good character your weakness of will is avoided because we use habit to make decisions and to deliberate. On to my next point which is the relation between prudence and justice. From Aristotle’s point of view justice is the most important virtue; And there is no difference between political science and ethics because its all a matter of justice.
Virtue is important when people consider their own characters: virtues are what defines a person, what they stand for, what they believe in. The argument made here is that virtue is a type of knowledge, as Plato states in Meno. In Meno, Socrates and Meno talk about how virtue is not a type of knowledge, up until they describe it. Socrates says, “If then virtue is something in the soul and it must be beneficial, it must be knowledge, since all the qualities of the soul are in themselves neither beneficial nor harmful, but accompanied by wisdom or folly they become harmful or beneficial.” (88c4-88d2) Wisdom is necessary for the characteristics of the soul, such as that brashness is a result of courage without wisdom, and because an understanding is necessary to have virtue, it is a characteristic of
Although, the political visions of all four philosophers differ from each other there is still a common feature that allows uniting Plato and Aristotle visions and contrasting them with those of Machiavelli and Hobbs. That is the affiliation of the former with the ancient political thought belonging to the modern school of the later. The fundamental difference between these two visions is that Plato and Aristotle saw the goal of the state in guarantying the people’s happiness and flourishment. They both had a view of how the ideal state and society should be organized, although their opinions concerning the way of achieving this goal varied considerably. Machiavelli and Hobbs denied this vision and preferred to operate with reality and facts.
In Aristotle’s words, he “is one who considers himself worthy of great things, and is worthy of them” (66:1123b3-4). While this description may strike some as arrogant or self-important, in reality the great-souled man finds the appropriate mean and acts in accordance with virtue, “for he assesses himself in accord with his worth, while the others exceed or fall short of theirs” (67:1123b16-17). It is for this reason that Aristotle holds the great-souled
This makes Plato seem to be a fantastic source, it is full of discoveries and creativity, and it is not afraid to let know. For example in the Republic, he treats happinessas a state of perfection that is hard to comprehend because it is base don metaphysical presuppositions that seem hazy and imposible to be understood by ordinary thinkers. Then he comes up with this new theory about happiness, and how it is all inside each persons desire to fulfill his or her own desires. Trying to look for a safe place, and with safety, comes great happiness. It is said that Plato began with short dialogues, which questioned basic morals such as courage, justice, moderation and so on.
Socrates opposed Sophist in argument that standards of right and wrong, good and bad. He argued that once we recognize what is truly good, we would act in accord with that knowledge and therefore he says that an act is based on the knowledge he says that cosmos is grounded in goodness, hence that a good human being cannot suffer forever and therefore death should not be feared (Plato
Therefore, virtues are the habits, which allow one to function well. Saying habits, he emphasizes the fact that it is something to be trained. In agreement with Plato about man's capacity to do good or bad, Aristotle defends a plastic nature of man and stresses that it ultimately depends on what we do. Virtue is the habitual action that allows man to function well and actualize his potential. Being a habit, virtue requires moral training.